Out of the Ballpark

As public funding increases for sports, so does opposition

RON KAMPEASAssociated Press Writer

Published Saturday, April 28, 2001

WASHINGTON -- An all-American pastime may soon be coming to a ballpark near you: the tax revolt.

Across the country, more and more fans, small businessmen and community leaders say using public money to build sports arenas for major league teams is ''corporate welfare.'' They hope to unite long-simmering local protests into a nationwide movement.

''It's using taxpayers' money for private enterprise, and to preclude what the public wants,'' said Erika Tarlin, a school librarian and lifelong Boston Red Sox fan who opposes plans to tear down historic Fenway Park and build a new one.

Ten years ago, such opposition was almost unheard of, and team owners almost always won referendums -- usually, overwhelmingly.

In recent years, however, opponents have scored significant successes.

Last year, after losing four referendums, the San Francisco Giants caved in and opened a stadium financed mostly by the private sector. Other recent referendums, for NFL franchises in Arizona and Seattle have passed, but barely. In Pittsburgh, the city council stepped in to salvage a plan after it was overwhelmingly defeated in a 1997 referendum.

''It's been an uphill battle,'' said Raymond Keating, a Washington-based economist whose Small Business Survival Committee opposes the use of public funds for stadiums. ''But when you explain economics to people, light bulbs go on.''

Soaring costs have spurred local protests and national interest; one study, for example, estimated that nearly $5 billion in public money has gone to stadiums since 1989.

''Now you see teams, and the politicians who back them, doing their best to avoid referendums,'' said Shawn McCarthy, who heads the Washington-based FansFirst!

In Chicago, for example, city officials in December quashed plans to hold a referendum on using tax money to help pay to rebuild Soldier Field, home to the football Bears.

Threats to leave town are a constant in the effort to sway the public -- and perhaps the most potent weapon the team owners have.

''It's hard to measure the prestige ... the enjoyment of following a team,'' said Dennis Coates, a University of Maryland economist whose research finds little public economic benefit in building new stadiums.

Still, Coates disputed the argument that a major league team makes a city ''world class.''

''Will New Orleans stop being a world class city?'' Coates asked, referring to recent indications that the NFL's Saints are considering leaving the city. ''I doubt it.''

The bluff rate is high; despite repeated threats, major league baseball has not moved a team since 1972, when the Washington Senators became the Texas Rangers.

McCarthy wants lawmakers to revive an unsuccessful bill that would force team owners to dedicate 10 percent of television revenues to a stadium construction trust fund. The bill was sponsored in 1999 by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who was responding to opposition to stadium proposals in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

Debbie Wei led a successful fight last year keep a new Phillies stadium out of Chinatown. She said the team seems increasingly remote from its blue-collar fan base.

''People here in Chinatown couldn't afford to go to a game,'' said Wei. The average major league baseball ticket price is $18.99, a 13 percent increase from 2000.

Increased public spending does not necessarily reduce ticket costs. Baseball teams in Pittsburgh and Milwaukee recorded the highest increases in ticket prices this year, with prices soaring 82 percent in Pittsburgh and 55 percent in Milwaukee. Yet both cities just opened ballparks financed overwhelmingly with public money.

Team owners say businesses seeking government support is nothing new.

''We need help, like any good business, with infrastructure work and land acquisition,'' said Dick Bersciani, a Boston Red Sox vice president, who says his team would raise $350 million of the projected $600 million cost for a new Fenway Park.

Even when a team pays for a new stadium, local governments will assist by building new roads, buying adjacent lands and offering the owners significant tax breaks.

The most famous beneficiary of public financing for stadiums is President Bush. In the early 1990s, he helped to persuade officials in Arlington, Texas, to seize land near the newly built Texas Rangers stadium, and hand it over to the Rangers. Such dealings helped parlay his $600,000 investment in the Rangers to $15 million in earnings.

Bush's former Rangers partner, Fred Malek, is among those seeking financing for a Washington-area baseball team.

Opponents say the practice of seizing land and handing it to the team is inherently corrupt, especially when eminent domain laws are used to force small businessmen out.

Stephen Fuller, an economist hired by Virginia to examine the feasibility of a baseball stadium in the state's Washington suburbs, estimated it would cost as much as $278 million -- but building it would inject at least $304 million into the local economy and generate over 3,000 jobs. The money would not come from new taxes, but from guaranteed revenue bonds.